Law of Tort – Duty of Care – Work Safety – Safe System of Work – Reasonable Care
Facts
The complainant, Mr Christmas, was a window cleaner who had worked for the defendant, General Cleaning Contractors, for 20 years. He was working on a cleaning contract of a building, which consisted of upper and lower areas, and this required him to clean from the inside and then go out onto a sill to clean the other areas. When Mr Christmas was cleaning, his fingers got trapped between the frames of the two sashes when it shut unexpectedly, which caused him to lose his balance and fall, suffering injuries.
Issues
The defendant appealed against liability. General Cleaning Contractors argued that Mr Christmas was a window cleaner with 20 years of experience in the trade and he should have recognised the risk from the sash windows before this accident happened.
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed. Although it was not common for it to happen, it was known that sash windows had the potential to slip and close unpredictably. The defendants as an employer had not provided a safe system of work for their employee, Mr Christmas. It should not be down to individual workers to identify and take precaution against dangers in the workplace and the employer has a duty to provide safety instructions. Thus, an employer should always take reasonable care to provide a safe system of work for their employees, whether they have years of experience or not.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas [1953] AC 180 (House of Lords). The core legal principle — that an employer owes a duty to provide a safe system of work and cannot discharge that duty simply by employing an experienced worker — remains good law. The employer’s duty to take reasonable care in establishing a safe system of work continues to be recognised in both common law negligence and, alongside it, the statutory framework governing workplace health and safety, principally the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Subsequent case law, including Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] and more recent authorities, has consistently affirmed the principle that it is the employer’s responsibility to devise and implement safe working practices, rather than leaving individual employees to identify and guard against foreseeable risks. The article is broadly accurate for its purpose as a case summary. Readers should note that the statutory health and safety regime now operates alongside the common law duty described here, and that since the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, breach of most health and safety regulations no longer gives rise to civil liability in itself, making the common law duty of care illustrated by this case of continued practical relevance.
